in part because of the demographics. gain, i go back to the fact that the system set up where, for example, the christians are now a minority in lebanon. but they're assured one-half of the parliamenty seats. we don't know how much of a minority because it's not been a sense since 1932. it's deliberate because they don't want to change the delicate game. the president has to be a marinite christian. the prime minister has to be a sunni muslim. speaker of the parliament has to be a shiite. you have all of these kinds of rules of the game. they are sensitive and have to be taken into account. that's part of the lebanese political culture that has to evolve. but the reality of it is that's not representative of the demographics on the ground so a government cannot ignore the demographics on the ground it also cannot ignore the power on the ground and the shi'a militia, particularly his bollia, much more, is very powerful. possibly even more powerful than the armies. it's hard to know for sure. one -- and the army certainly s

versus tri- branding and many other aspects that really, for example, locations, or even the population, demographic projections. >> but the single line and tribunal, that's not the dealers all. that's chrysler's fall. i mean, if you have to many, the seats, the grill and the design, that's not their fault. naturally chrysler's fault so what are they being punished? >> great question. i understand why you asked that and i understand the passion. >> i drive an oldsmobile. they get away with it. the last one here. on nursing along, i've pretty close to 200,000 on it and i don't want to leave it, but at least i've got other options. but i'm mad that they closed oldsmobile. >> yes, sir. i understand the double branding. >> i've been with the company a short time. i came from toyota for 37 years, and i think everybody understands the difficulties that our company has had with regard to integrity a product, quality and appeal. and asking why that is, it isn't because people don't want to build good cars and trucks. there are insufficient resources available to do the engineering and develop necessary to b

jordan is more than 60 or 75% palestinian so there is a lot of concern over the demographics. people talk about the demographic threat to israel, it is far worse in jordan at this point and the hashemite kingdom is concerned about then and has taken steps to assure the west bank ever becomes jordan, they don't want to include the west bank palestinians into jordan because it would essentially completely diluted whenever national identity that exists in jordan today. in 1987 after the outbreak of the first intifada, king hussein actually renounced all claims to the west bank because of this hearing a spill over into the east bank of palestinian violence so you have a big kingdom of jordan that was to make sure that those divisions remain although i think there is probably a good argument that can be made this is a chart and should take control and storage chip and economic control whenever the case may be, but it is really the palestinian narrative driving it and they don't wish for this to happen. on top of that, of course, the jordanians have no interest as well. >> was still

people talk about the demographic threat to israel, it is far worse in jordan at this point and the hashemite kingdom is concerned about this and has taken steps to make sure that the west bank never becomes jordan, they don't want to include the west bank palestinians into jordan because it would essentially completely dilutes what ever national identity that exists in jordan today. in 1987 after the outbreak of the first intifada king hussein actually renounced all claims to the west bank because of the theory of spill over into the east bank of palestinian violence so you have a drinking of jordan that wants to make sure that those divisions remain although i think there is a good argument that can be made that says jordan should take control and stewardship and economic control what ever the case may be but it is the palestinian narrative that is they don't wish to happen and on top of that occurs the jordanians have no interest. >> let's go and the back there. >> i would like to return the conversation to the question of palestinian leadership and you say they're missing a charismatic le

first of all, we do not have any intention to change the demographics in the area. it is in every place [unintelligible] we cannot accept this vision or settlement. the musky the natural growth that the prime minister spoke about in his speech. this position, this approach is very clear. we have some understanding with the previous administration and we have tried to keep this direction. we are writing for direct talks -- we are ready for direct talks with the palestinians. >> we want to see a stop to the settlement. this is an important and essential part of pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement. there are a number of critical concerns, many of which overlap in their impact of significance that will be explored in the coming weeks senator mitchell and gauges more deeply into the specifics as to where the israelis and palestinians are willing to go together. i think the whole issue that you have raised is one that we expressed our opinion on. in looking at the history of the bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements that have been

for me is the shift in the demographics system, the rise of american power and i finally would point* out the united states has a population density of a 34 people per square kilometer japan has a population density 365, germany density 285 people, the old world is highly intensely populated. the united states is relatively unpopulated and in a world of declining populations, the united nations -- denies states knows how to live in a continent with relatively few people and how to welcome immigrants very effectively. this is not a argument we are more virtuous than anybody that we are smarter than anybody it is simply a geographical fact we are in the right place at the right time. and it is an attempt to put things into perspective things that looked absolutely horrendous right now want to look so horrendous and five years. to check that out go back 21978/to 79 the last time we thought the world was sending. let me stop there and i invite questions [applause] >> i read how the world works today and how that defines how it will work in the future of like to open up to questions and i

demographics they use for our market area. we then pointed this out to chrysler and ask every computer our minimum skills requirements based upon the correct demographic all information. unfortunately chrysler refused to even consider our request. in the spring of 2008i attended the only dealer meeting unaware of where by representatives of chrysler's plant project genesis to the dealers in western washington. project genesis is the name of their program to reduce the number of dealers and during that representatives of chrysler stated that under project genesis there will be to chrysler dealerships in pierce county washington and one of those would be the city of to, so that the news across our customers would be adequately addressed. on may 14th 2009i received notification from chrysler that it intended to terminate tacoma dodge as a dealer in the state of washington we have a franchise and to protect dealers from manufacturers unreasonably terminating a dealer. under the washington franchise act chrysler would never have been able to terminate tacoma dodge since tacoma dodge was one of his most outstanding dealers using any yard

and michael says well, it will all be fine, because whatever the demographics of different districts, we're going to get relatively represented legislatures, maybe, maybe, but we don't know, because we don't have much experience because these 35% minority districts haven't existed since 1990 because of the voting rights a act. so you know, my instinct which is also one that comes from ambivalence, want to see this regime softened up at the margins, and i think any hard social problem results in what you might call incoherent muddle be through policies, instead of going to one of the supreme polar positions, which i think is michael's alternative. so that's the incoherence. >> i'm a black and white guy. >> yes, gentleman back here. >> i'm patrick wilson. i'll make an observation first and just as a political hack, i'll say very often that black students that i work with in d.c., they are sometimes accused of being acting white when they try to overachieve. it's something that abbey has written about many times and as a white lit co, i would vastly sometimes, if we talk about successes

the united states navy. so what goes around comes around, and we're back at it again. demographic pressures are also going to add to some of the challenges of the future. if you consider that the population in the urban areas in 2050 will be the same as the world population in 2040 or 2004, i'm sorry, so you can see that just the urban areas are going to grow. seven of the ten largest cities are going to be on or near the coast, and you're going to see that demographic press down near the coastal areas. resource competition is going to heat up for water and fish and arable land. climate change is going to affect our weather patterns, and it's going to effect the icecaps, so all of that is going to change. and beyond all of that we also face the challenges of proliferation. and as i mentioned that no conflict will ever again in my mind be high end or low end, you know, hybrid really is the word du jour. but it's more than the word du jour, it really is what our future will be. we see proliferation of advanced weapons, submarines, the population of world submarines is expected to in

>> to talk about the demographic change, there are about 60 countries in the world have declining populations. i think that iran and every one else wanted to that point because if you have a continued rise in population, the world will not hold the ball. -- will not hold them all. you heard one of my german colleagues point out that they had raised retirement ages and he has seen shifts in pensions. i am not one that fears of the aging problem. actually, ron is more where china was 15 years ago where you have this much larger than normal share of your relatively working age and you do not have a lot of children that our dependencants. turning to the credit capitalism issues, i would not call it crony capitalism, i would call it crony stateism. maybe the rhetoric was one way, but it has not been the other way that is an area which is best addressed by just opening up competition and i think that is where the government made quite a bit of progress. it has to do with where the president took a large step back. the of focused on people with connections and they had huge transfers of wealth in te

researchers say that we cannot explain the differences in health needs are differences in the demographics of the population. the experts tell us there is up to about 30% of health-care expenditures that are just being wasted. that means that we have a lot of fat that we can cut out of the system without having any diminishment of care. with the president is committed to is maintaining and improving the quality of care. i'll give you one other number. we talked a lot about him slow the growth rate of cost by 1.5% a year. the crucial thing is, with the kind of inefficiency that is there, we can do that for 25 years before we actually use of the existing amount of inefficiencies. the kind of changes that we have mentioned in the prison has talked about, we absolutely can do that. it is absolutely crucial to do. >> they are not without controversy, i might add. they are crucial. the president met with a number of the providers with pharmaceutical groups, insurance groups, and others, and they talked about taking out about 1.5 -- about $2 trillion or the next 10 years. it became more controver

his father was one of the finest people i knew, but i don't think demographics are serious with regard to the economy. i think what we did in the book, we mentioned demographics once. >> i will just add that it is not so much the demographics as the problem which i think you are addressing, who the massive deficits, the social security problem and the others and how are we going to fund them. and it is a problem. arthur's point about raising the social security age from 65 to 70 is the obvious solution. begin know what the average male life expectancy was in this country in the year 1900? it was 48. things have changed a lot, and when social security was started in the 30's, the average life expectancy, i don't know what the exact number was but it was a hell of a lot lower than it was now. so, obviously now is in the upper 70's, so clearly some of these things are going to be done. they are politically difficult to do but when we are faced with bankruptcy, they will get done. >> one quick thing on this, if you look at these statistics, on what happened to social security this year in

third string that strikes me about the difference between then and now is the face of the court, the demographic face of the court. an obvious way, for example is we have women on the court. we didn't have them in 1969. we had blackmon and thurgood marshall on the court as black men and we will soon have the first hispanic justice on the court. there have been changes. it is interesting to recall that in 1969, it was exactly one roman catholic on the court, one jewish justice, and all the rest were protestants, mostly press buy tearian and e piss ka pailian and now by contrast, the majority are roman catholic, two jewish justices and once souter leaves the court, there will be exactly one protestant. again, i'm not suggesting that you can trace any cause and effect between the justices' religions and how they vote on cases, but it's an interesting way of commenting on how the court reflects the changing demography of the country itself. fourthly, the confirmation process. back in the '50's, 50 or so years ago, especially back in the new deal days before that, confirmations were fairly unexciting

that even if we do health system reform, the disease burden that is coming down the road with the demographicsby boomers reaching the age of 65 and the obesity epidemic and the challenge on the health of individuals that we have to put the proper investment to prevent diseases. we are excited about working with the president on this front. >> yes, please. >> what did you hear that you like to relative to the liability reform aspect? what kind of public option to ucb ama favorin-- do you see th? >> we were very pleased about him being open to consider options that would lower the cost of defensive medicine. he acknowledged that it is an issue. he put it in the context of the overall rising and unsustainable and crippling health care costs. he has not taken that off of the table. he is the first one to put it on the table. that is what we were really pleased about. in terms of the other options, he described several things. he described an exchange. it will be very interesting to see as bills come forward with the particular options will be. what we want to do and i think what the president appe

past and being accountable, you like to see one that has released all of the questions and also the demographics so we know the composition. doesn't look like a representative survey? >> host: how as a layperson know that? >> guest: the road has changed with the internet there are signs like pollster.com that analyze the different surveys. there is much more accountability for pulling people looking over their shoulders. you have to pay attention to the internet surveys or voice recognition, a real person, there are different ways. but in the campaign which is what i talk about it is different, not just the numbers the least interesting thing i would find is who that is ahead. the most important thing is what is the fight about? what is the election going to be about? i was trained as a in the academic one book was written in the argument was if you understand the fight you know, who will win and who gets drawn and, what is the crowd that watches the fight? what is the fight about? we had the 1992 elections with bill clinton and george bush the father 30 we're trying to make the case you could n

first of all, we really don't have any intention to change the demographic balance there. but we think that it is every place around the world maybe our people get married some way and we can accept this vision about absolutely, completely freezing settles. i think that we must keep the nature of this. the prime minister spoke about this in his peach. i think that this position, this view, this approach, is very cle clear. also, we had some understandings with the previous administration and we tried to keep this direction. and we are, of course, ready for direct talks with the palestinians. >> as president obama, senator mitchell and i said, we want to see a stop to the settlements. we think that is an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement and the creation of a m palestinian state next to an israe israeli/jewish state that is secure in its borders and future. we believe that this process, which senator mitchell is quarterbacking for us, has just beg begun. there are a number of critical concerns, many of which overl

and maybe even for differences of the demographics of the population being covered.beyond that though, the big impact of this, if there is an impact, not most people who are affected at all, is on higher income individuals who are in higher tax brackets and who have more generous health plans. so the vast majority of that impact is on families with income over $100,000. this is a policy that doesn't have necessarily uniform support from either party, but perhaps some support from both. that made it attractive from us too from a political standpoint, but from the republican side normally a party who doesn't support a tax increases, there's kind of a recognition that changing this tax exclusion could provide more incidents to get people into more efficient plant instead of having to government-subsidized dollar after dollar of health care spending regardless of how efficient or generous the plan is. and on the democratic side, not the recognition that a vast majority of the vast tax break goes to higher income levels and could be used much more effectively to get affor

now, perhaps even more profound than the demographics are the early determinants that have been mentioned by my colleagues. the mechanisms are very complex. they are, upstream factors of parental income and neighborhood. the mechanisms are complex, but scholars generally agree that good structured education in the early years enables children to develop self control, problem- solving dispositions, and not least, a sense of the future. now, what does this mean for health in later life? well, obviously, it means more opportunities to obtain decent jobs, jobs with health benefits, more autonomy. that is one of the key lessons in the civil steady which looked at the ingredients of income and found that the sec it to highest gradient still that disproportionately cardiac mortality than one would expect even though their incomes are very good, but the conclusion was said they did not have the latitude to determine how they worked on the job, and it was a sense of stress, a sense of that without authority, says stress is quite important. also, good education given to the financial security to cu

as you look at the demographics, this is not a community kennedy -- a community they can afford to ostracize. immigration reform needs to be accomplished because you cannot continue to allow 12 million all undocumented immigrants to work on the ground and impact our economy without forcing them to become legal immigrants poured legalize them in some fashion or another. as we look at economic reform coming down the pike, it will be important to have this immigration community who conserve in many of the roles that we will need, the low- income labor rolls that the economy will need to move on and get stronger in the next year or so. host: let's go to redding, pa., on the democrat line. caller: you opened the show with "don't ask don't tell." it simply does not work. the gay community does not do itself justice when it comes to getting equal rights. the gay community, especially during world war two, tens of thousands were marched to concentration camps and used for target practice and medical experiments. the breast were gassed. -- the rest were gassed. it was illegal in the '60s for two peop

you'd like to see a poll that's released all its questions and also the demographics we know the competitionyou know, of it does it look like a representative survey. >> host: how can a layperson know that? >> guest: right now the world has changed. now with the internet, you know, there's sites like pollster.com that evaluate the different surveys so we're in a different world. there's much more accountability for people who are looking over their shoulders. and you have to pay attention whether internet survey or whether it's voice recognition or a real person. there's different ways of doing surveys. but in campaigns and what i talk about here is campaigns, polling is a little different. it's not just the numbers. the least interesting thing i would find, you know, who's ahead in the race. the most important thing to find out is what's the fight about? what's the election going to be about? what's at issue? you know, i was trained as an academic. you know, one of the people i read in my academic, but if you understand what the fight's about you know, you know -- you know who's going to wi

yes, the demographics had a lot to do with it. by 2008, president obama had a bigger base to run from then senator mccain did. cain did. at that time, we won all three because we had a better candidate, and we had better conditions. these things are important because it was easy to forget amid all the criticism and some of the praise, what a profound impact elections have on people's lives. i was thinking about all the trips we took command in the planes when both of us were overweight. [laughter] trying to drum up support for the dlc. we held our breath at that williamsburg conference, and we had a meeting in new orleans. we had a meeting in cleveland. one of my good friends, reverend jackson, called us the democrats of the leisure class. some of the set we were republican light because we talked about trade, national security, and welfare reform and holding families together. they forgot we also talked about strategies to reduce poverty, collect child support, promote education, and that we were very explicit early on in saying

murphy: one of the interesting demographics, -- mr. dent: one of the interesting demographics, over half, 55% of the people lacking coverage in america are under the age of 35. many are insureable. college-age kids up to 35. they tend to be more insureable than much of the rest of the population. i believe we do have suggestions and proposals of ways to cover that population, get them into an affordable catastrophic coverage they need in the event something dramatic happens in their life. that's another statistic i don't think we talk enough about. also, there are a large number of people uninsured who are eligible for program, whether medicaid or the children's health insurance program. mr. murphy: many of the younger folks consider themselves inas a rule nearbies, they don't need insurance, they don't get sick. what happens is if they do get sick, they do end up in emergency rooms, we pay for it. it is important we provide every incentive to purchase the insurance that many times an employer does offer. mr. kirk: we ought to allow sma

i would also say that it is because of the demographics of our population. we have more people who are aging. they are becoming eligible for those benefits. they are collecting from that program at a time when we have fewer workers paying into the system. it is a calculus that is bound to run into

equity, this expansion of schematically increase the diversity in that workforce that reflects the demographics of our country on all levels. that research further shows that these providers will practice in the underserved community and that the cultural and linguistic accordance with gender better patient-doctor relationship and trust and achieve better outcomes are ethical every american can support. the second provision is a creation of health empowerment zone because of the good health either begins orients in the community and because some of the most respected health equity efforts of those that are community-based, this bill also includes zones, health empowerment zones which are modeled after economic empowerment zones to provide areas, be it a neighborhood, preservation, burrow, county, township or city with resources and technical assistance identify their health disparity challenges and to courteney existing resources and expertise to develop and implement community-based solutions. but the health equity and accountability act of 2009 dozen much more. throughout the provisions that

so designing -- we ought to be designing this around what the demographics are as coverage is related to income as a percentage of poverty level as it rises. even though you're going to make them pay more, but the fact is we're going to cost shift again to those people who have the money. the there's 11 million people in this country who have plenty of money to buy health insurance who choose not to. they're gambling on their own insurance. >> again, we're not forcing anybody to do anything. >> no. but what you are saying is they can take advantage of this even though they choose to be irresponsible. >> up to 200% of poverty. >> up to 350% as you have it written. >> then they have to pay something in on a sliding scale. do you want to do a community health structure? i think the center is very supportive of those. you can go in there -- you can have private insurance and go into a community health center. >> i just want them to pay the same things to the physicians in town competing with the community health centers as you pay the community health centers. because there's ae's 20% dif

importance that even if we do health system reform the disease burden coming down the road both with the demographicsour baby boomers reaching age 65 has well as the obesity epidemic and its challenge on the health of individuals that we have to put the proper investment to prevent diseases, so we are excited about working with the president on this. >> doctor? dr. nelson, bruce jensen with the tribune. what did you hear that you like relative to the liability reform aspect, and also, what kind of public option the you see the amsa favoring? in the next couple of days. >> first of all let's deal with liability reform. we knew he was opposed to a cap, as you heard him say, that was not a surprise but what we bored very pleased about what is that he is open to considering options that would lower the cost of defensive medicine. he had knowledge that it as an issue and he put it in the context of the overall rising and unsustainable and crippling healthcare costs, so he has not taken that off the table and in fact, as i said, he is the first one to put it on the table and that is what we were really ple

so, yes, the demographics will a lot to do with it. but by 2008 president obama had a bigger base to run from than senator mccain did. and we had a better candidate and they had bad conditions. these things are important because it is easy to forget, amid all of the criticism and some of the praise, what a frowned profound impact elections have on people's lives. i was thinking about all of the trips we took crammed into planes when both of us were over weig weight. going first one place and then the other in the 1980's trying to drum up support for the d.l.c. how we held our breath at a williamsburg conference, then the meeting in new orleans, then the meeting in cleveland. and one of my good friends, reverend jackson, called us the democrats for the leisure class. some of our liberal friends said we were republican like because we talked about trade and national security and welfare reform. and holding families together. they forgot we also talked about strategies to reduce poverty, collect child support, promote educati education, a

to deal with the fiscal issues facing the country and taxpayers coming down the line with the changing demographics, the baby boomers retiring, so security, medicare. >> i think we have limited the retirement option. [laughter] >> we have all of these issues. on top of that we have the largest recession in the post work time frame. we were extremely concerned about this inflationary force in the financial distress that came with everything. i thought it was entirely appropriate to provide as much stimulus as we could. we did that on the monetary policy side. we have done a tremendous number of innovative programs which has taken as to the boundary of our a 30's. it is very uncomfortable for everybody involved. it seemed like the appropriate thing to do. s open the other issues. we have walked into the opening of these issues for the good of putting the, the best possible footing in these circumstances. the fiscal stimulus was an important part of that. we can all talk about the various elements of these programs. nobody will agree on everything. the size of the program i thought was very important.

getting out of this problem, we won't cut the 7.2% inflation rate in health care, especially with the demographicspeople aging. you know, sheltering children, as bob casey said, that's important. we just modified schip and rejected a senate amendment that would have covered all of those kids and not raised taxes at all. yet we've got 16 million kids out there today that are eligible for schip and medicaid and they're not on the roll. why? because we're not listening to the patient. we're not listening to what we're doing wrong and we're getting ready to make the same mistake again. 16 million of them. so why are e.r.s loaded with kids with an ear infection when they're already medicaid-eligible? because we haven't oversighted and neither have the states in terms of enrolling those people to where they have a primary care. and we have a medicare payment system that says, if you're a medical student you graduating in this country, you don't want to go into primary care because there's a 300% payment differential versus you spending another year or two in training, you'll make 300% more. so only the

. >> you are very representative of the demographic because it is generally male who think it is a liberalbias. females think it is conservative. >> i'm spencer from crofton nebraska and i feel there is an overall liberal bias in the media. even though you can get both views, say fox news, the ultra-conservative, but in the mainstream media book there is a liberal bias. you said that the press has a duty and an obligation to provide fair, bipartisan, just the facts press and the politicians themselves have to sway the people. and, i think that we have deviated from that somewhat in the press is now swaying the people one way or the other. >> i got you. >> let's find out the other point of view and then we are going to have the stay close to the mic because after bob talks we may want to hear more from you. >> i don't feel there really is an overall liberal dominance i guess in the press. though i think there's a lot of liberal influence, think there's probably just as much conservative and moderate all together. >> i think, i think the fact is reporters generally speaking see themselves as

have to deal with the fiscal issues facing the country and the taxpayers coming down the line with changing demographics, the baby boomers retiring. >> we have eliminated the retirement options. >> we have those issues and on top of that we have the largest recession, greater than 1974 and 1975, we were very concerned about inflationary forces and the financial stress that came with everything. i thought this was appropriate to provide as much stimulus as we could. we did that on monetary policy, a tremendous number of innovative programs that have taken us to the boundary of the authority, this was uncomfortable but this was the -- this seemed like the right thing to do. we walked into the opening of those issues, from the good of but -- for the good of putting the economy in the best place for these circumstances. we cannot talk -- we can talk about the elements of these programs, we agree with everything but the size of the programs. and this is adding to all of the challenges. the challenges remain and they need to be dealt with. we have to make choices about the level of spending and how will this

we have a data service the provides demographic location information and the identification of future trends. we have the process of understanding what franchisees we have, the criteria from the dealers own score cards. it's a number of pieces of information. it wasn't just a computer. it was vetted through a number of levels. >> -- why would a dealer who had maybe one of your to prance and was a performing dealer and profitable dealer, why wouldn't they be given the opportunity to just pick up, the you stores selling the third brand to them? what stops you from doing that? >> there's a couple reasons. one of them of course is you don't want to dealers that maybe next door to each other selling the same products. i don't think the dealers want that either. in fact there are laws that require 10-mile separation. we have to be careful to craft a right network going forward that has the distance and appropriate market so the dealers can survive. and normally many of these locations where we have the single brand dealerships they are in such close proximity that they have to be brought up

that had to deal with the fiscal issues facing the country and taxpayers coming down the line with changing demographics, the baby boomers retiring, social security, medicare, and everything. >> i think we've eliminated the retirement

. >> on the breakouts by demographics, some of the numbers are moving around a little bit because it is not a large sample size. i would look for the pattern over the last few months. it is still being consistent with the rising unemployment rate overall. >> i am almost out of time, but in pennsylvania, the numbers in march and april were 7.8% unchanged. steady with eight unchanged. we don't know them may number yet. i will know that probably in two weeks so fortunately the last few months have been steady but what i worry about and a lot of states are concerned about is the impact of the troubles at gm and chrysler. and how were state it's not although manufacturing jobs per say, it's really dealers and suppliers. any sense of where that's going? i know that and may i guess the number i'm seeing is 29,800 jobs lost in all the manufacturing in part supply. again i know it is not your job to period bostick eight or predict, but is there any indication that 29,800 number is going to go up? logic would tell it will go up because we won't see the full effect of the gm and chrysler proble

and if you took similar, the same demographic makeup, similar people who were uninsured, we spent, what, something like 18 -- 1700. so about 43%. so what if we argue we are not rationing that is just a joke. that is rationing unless you say the whole difference was waste we must have already been rationing. so basically what jack hadley and colleagues to basically say we have to top this off. if we insure than they behave like the others 3900, and i think that in the end because some people were uninsured the whole year only part of the year what they come up with it will add about 122 billion to health spending in 2008 had we had everyone insured. and i think no one has fought with this number at all. as the gold standard we all use. so if you now use this i would say okay suppose we had full coverage in 2010 that would probably add 150 billion to national health spending may be. and the government what may be paid 125 billion of that because some of it might still be coerced out of the people under a mandate. but that would grow. i had let this grow here at only 5%, which as i already

and if you took similar -- the same demographic makeup, similar people who were uninsured, we spent,hat, something like 18, 1700 there. so about 43%. so if we argue we are not rationing healthcare in america, that is just a joke. that is rationing unless you say the whole difference was waste. you must -- we must already have been rationing. so basically what jack hadley and colleagues do, basically say we have to top this off, you know, if we insured them they'd behave like the others, it'd be 3900 and i think in the end, because some people weren't insured the whole year, only part of the year, what they come up with, it would add about $122 billion to health spending in 2008 had we had everyone insured. that's it. and i think no one has fought with this number at all. it's the -- it's the gold standard we all use. so if you now use this and would say, okay, supposing we had full coverage in 2010, that would probably add $150 billion to national health spending, maybe. and the government would maybe pay $125 billion of that. some of it might still be coursed out of the people under

the coast. you are going to see that demographic press down near the coastal areas. research competition is going to heat up for water and for fish and arable land. climate changes going to affect our weather patterns and it is going to affect the icecaps which in turn will affect transit grounds and that will change. beyond all that, we also face the challenges of proliferation. as i mentioned, that no conflict will ever again in my mind be high and or low and. hybrid really is the word of the day. it is what our future will be. we see the proliferation of advanced weapons. submarines. the population of world submarines is expected to increase in -- increased 280 in the next few decades. we have seen how groups like hezbollah can have an advanced anti-ship cruise missile. again, i am not sure that we have will -- we will go into an environment and say it is low- end or high-end any more. what was once kind of remote and not of great interest as far as battlefield's go, they are opening up. i talked about the blue twirl -- littoral areas. there is a competition for r

the cause of their birth rate. everyone else will shrink. this demographic trends suggest that we are going to need energy in america and and and -- and india perhaps more than any other place. you have talked about the availability and cost of energy. as i say, i think we have to say -- we have to have continued access to cheap energy. while we have been focusing much of our conversation on nuclear, with each of you or any of you have comments as to this whole question about the american economy needing continued access to cheap energy and where you think that cheap energy should come from? ok? quacks i think the important thing is weak -- >> i think the important thing is we have placed too much emphasis on having a broad spectrum of energy sources. i think for the base load that we talked about, day in and day out, there is nothing in the same class with nuclear. we are used to comparing things a few percent apart. the density of nuclear compared to anything non-nuclear -- it is a question of tens of millions. your non-nuclear system will be using huge qu

the cause of their birth rate. everyone else will shrink. this demographic trends suggest that we are going to this suggests that we will need energy in america and india more than any other place. you have talked about the cost of energy. i think that we have to have, if we're going to survive as the kind of economy that we